Licence to Kill Part II: A Comparative Survey of the Law in the United Kingdom, United States of America and South Africa

Summary

The first part of this article, published in the previous issue of the Journal,¹ surveyed the South African law dealing with the right of law enforcement officials to use deadly force. In brief, the law allows the use of deadly force by policemen in the defence of person or property,² to prevent the escape of a Schedule 1 suspect,³ and to effect the dispersal of a riotous and dangerous crowd.⁴ It was noted that the South African law strays from internationally accepted norms by dispensing significantly with the ‘proportionality’ principle: the principle that such force as is used should be commensurate with the danger or social harm that is sought to be prevented. On the other hand, the South African law generally conforms with the second internationally accepted principle that deadly force should be used only when there are no other less violent methods that can be used: ‘the minimum force principle’. However, it appears that in practice the South African Police use deadly force with little restraint, and, in this regard, those responsible for monitoring the use of firearms, including the courts, have failed to emphasize the sanctity of human life and the strictest requirements that should be met before another's life is terminated or his/her body mutilated.